Monday, December 01, 2008

Mobbery Unlimited

Looks like Kaitlin Sopoci- Belknap just won't let the Measure T issue drop. Actually, I get the feeling her latest My Word column was more of a fund raising effort for Democracy Unlimited than anything else.

She goes on and on about how the majority's will be followed. I've expressed my displeasure with that notion here before. As the first comment on the Times- Standard forum for her column pointed out, by her way of thinking, Prop 8 was passed by a majority of the voters so it should stand.

To paraphrase James Bovard, "Democracy should amount to more than just two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch".

43 Comments:

At 9:38 AM, Blogger mresquan said...

Well,I've asked this before,how is one to protect against tyranny of the minority?And why shouldn't the voices of 55% who voted yes be preserved?They knew what they were enacting and the potential implications,but the benefits of enacting it outweighed them.Should prop 8 be overturned?Yes,but by the will of voters and not by courts.It's extremely unfortunate that it passed,but as far as I can tell,no barriers were put in place for those who opposed it to not be able to vote on it.And I am not saying that courts have no place in representing the minority,but they have no right to completely silence the will of the majority either.

 
At 10:24 AM, Blogger Stephen said...

They do if the will of the majority takes away the rights of a minority and is thus against the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech. Even if that speech is by business owners.

 
At 10:57 AM, Blogger mresquan said...

But what about when the minority takes away the rights of the wishes of the majority,which the Constitution purports to also represent?

 
At 11:04 AM, Blogger Fred said...

I assume you're saying the Constitution represents because of "We the people..." being used in it?

Other than that I'm not sure there's any reference to protecting majority rule. Sure, that's the natural way things usually work, doesn't it: Majority Rules? Learned that as a child.

Everything I've read said the founders were very nervous about pure democracy. That's why they established a republic, with checks and balances built in.

...if you can keep itas Ben Franklin was known to have said.

 
At 11:10 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Ooops. "the Constitution represents because of "We the people..." being used in it?".

That was supposed to read, represents the majority because of....

 
At 12:44 PM, Blogger Ernie Branscomb said...

Fred Mangles: "Democracy should amount to more than just two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch".

Fred, I Googled your quote, and it is original to you. I like it, and it is right up there with some of my favorite quotes. Among them; “When the lion lays down with the lamb, it is best to be the lion”.

As you know, we don’t live in a Democracy, but a Republic, where we choose the leaders that plot America’s course for us, and sometimes the ship of state is caught in a storm. The Gay rights issue is one of those storms, where sometimes the direction that you want to go is more determined by they storm than your port of call.

Religion has always acted like a sea anchor. It has keep the ship of state headed into the waves, but slowed it’s course considerably. I think that it was just last year that religion decided that it was okay to think that the world was round.

As much as we anguish that our gay friends don’t have the same rights as we do, we have come a long way. At one time a gay person would have been burned at the stake for acting out the will of the Devil. Someday religion will catch up with reality, and gays will be accepted as the same as you or I. Revel in how far we have come, and rest in knowing that someday we will be there, and we can proudly say we were part of the gay rights movement.

 
At 1:45 PM, Blogger Rose said...

Yeah, mresquan - who needs the goddam constitution anyways?

Let's just ignore it.

 
At 1:50 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Ernie wrote, "I Googled your quote, and it is original to you.".

Somebody told me, and I think it was on one of the blogs, that James Brovard wrote it, or something very similar.

 
At 1:53 PM, Blogger Rose said...

Kaitlin/Cobb has been soliciting money on a Salzmanesque scale - maybe mresquan can tell us the size of the check they wrote to Humboldt County to cover the litigation costs....

 
At 2:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The quote reminded me of Eric Kirks attempt to engage in anti-democratic activity in order to get his candidate, Clif, "elected." These kind of people are scary.

 
At 5:04 PM, Blogger Rose said...

Kaitlin should also remember "the will of the people" in Prop 187

California Proposition 187 was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to deny illegal immigrants social services, health care, and public education. ...It passed with 58.8% of the vote, but was overturned by a federal court.

 
At 6:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The two wolves are corporate personhood types and the sheep is just a sheep.

 
At 6:26 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Rose wrote, "California Proposition 187 was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to deny illegal immigrants social services, health care, and public education. ...It passed with 58.8% of the vote, but was overturned by a federal court.".

And I actually agreed with that proposition. Just goes to show, a lot of times our checks and balances don't work the way we want.

 
At 6:29 PM, Blogger Fred said...

6:08 wrote, "The two wolves are corporate personhood...".

I'll never understand that argument. Most businesses, if not the vast majority of them, are organized as corporations. I think this is a straw man argument.

 
At 8:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't understand why people don't make the distinction between small business and a multi-bizillion dollar corporation with all the access to to legislation that money can buy. Add to that the super human designation of legal person status bestowed upon an entity that exists to expand its profit loss margin. You end up with an organization that usurps your voice as your representative government trades up. Is it any wonder that wages remain stagnant as two income households struggle in this rigged economy?

 
At 10:43 PM, Blogger Rose said...

Most businesses, if not the vast majority of them, are organized as corporations.

Yep, fred, and if you can get ;em to tell you - are ALL corporations bad? 'Cause it seems like it's WalMart, bad, Apple, good, Oracle, good, ummmm, Home Depot bad, Enron, bad, and then they don't know any other corporations.

They're happy to take BIG corporate donations laundered through the big grantmaking Foundations, though, the kind where you can hide the sources.

That's all cool.

The whole thing is stupid beyond belief.

 
At 11:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The two wolves are David and Katlin and the sheep is Fred. Fred you're still the man but I'm glad they won't get much of a meal off your skinny ass. Alas,these to villeins will just continue till they shred the asses off what's left of working Humboldt.

 
At 11:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Mark Konkler opposes the ACLUs lawsuit against Prop. 8 AND he opposes the ACLUs stand against Measure T?

Well that settles it. Mresquan just plain hates freedom.

 
At 8:00 AM, Blogger Fred said...

No, I don't think esquan hates freedom. I think he just has a misguided view, and concern, for the will of the majority, imo.

Seems to me you can compare it to the issue of protecting free speech: Speech that the majority of people agree with doesn't need protection. It's the speech that the majority doesn't agree with that's likely to need protection.

So it goes with the will of the majority. Majorities, by their definition, nearly always get their way. Whether their way violates the rights of the minority should be the concern.

Earlier on esquan asked, "But what about when the minority takes away the rights of the wishes of the majority,...?"..

I'm trying to think of an example where a minority in this country has ever taken away the rights of the majority. I'm sure there must be a few. I just can't come up with any.

 
At 8:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't bother arguing with Mark, after all David Cobb could be caught with a dead girl or a live boy and Mark would still be making excuses, it's all he has left.

I can't wait for these intolerant DUHCs to show up at a gay rights rally and declare Prop. 8 as the eternal will of the people. ha! Maybe Cobb could waddle into the midst of an immigrant rights rally and declare Prop. 187 as the racist will of the majority to be obeyed. Of course Cobb didn't even live in this fucking state when 187passed, so how would that ignoramus know any different?

 
At 9:21 AM, Blogger mresquan said...

"So Mark Konkler opposes the ACLUs lawsuit against Prop. 8 AND he opposes the ACLUs stand against Measure T?"

Well the local ACLU also supports the contribution limitation ordinances,therefore stripping the freedom of an individual to donate their desired amount of his or her earned money to candidates of their choice,so the ACLU and myself stand side by side in this restriction of freedom.

 
At 9:53 AM, Blogger Stephen said...

"I'm trying to think of an example where a minority in this country has ever taken away the rights of the majority. I'm sure there must be a few. I just can't come up with any."

I can easily, Fred. One minority religious group representing only 2% of Americans controls all of America's money system. And this information comes from your buddies at Ron Paul’s campaign website:

“The Federal Reserve System is divided into two parts: the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, located in Washington DC, and the Federal Reserve District Banks, located throughout the United States. Here is the official website of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors:
If you examine this page, you will see that there are five members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. You will also see that all five(5) of the board members are Jewish. This is a numerical representation of 100%. Why is this important? It’s important because Jews only constitute about 2% of the United States population*. So the odds that all five members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors would be Jewish are infinitesimally small. Here are the five members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors:

Benjamin S. Bernanke - Jewish
Donald L. Kohn - Jewish
Kevin M. Warsh - Jewish
Randall S. Kroszner - Jewish
Frederic S. Mishkin - Jewish

Now, if you examine the presidents of the twelve Federal Reserve District Banks, you will discover a similar pattern of Jewish over-representation. Here is the section of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors’ website that lists the twelve Federal Reserve District Banks and their respective presidents:

If you examine this section, you will see that there are twelve Federal Reserve Bank presidents. You will also see that nine(9) of the twelve presidents are Jewish. This is a numerical representation of 75%. Again, this is important because Jews only comprise about 2% of the United States population*, so the chances that nine of the twelve Federal Reserve Bank presidents would be Jewish are incredibly miniscule. Here are the twelve presidents of the Federal Reserve District Banks:

FRB of Boston: Eric S. Rosengren - Jewish
FRB of New York: Timothy F. Geithner - Jewish
FRB of Philadelphia: Charles I. Plosser - Jewish
FRB of Richmond: Jeffrey M. Lacker - Jewish
FRB of St. Louis: James B. Bullard - Jewish
FRB of Minneapolis: Gary H. Stern - Jewish
FRB of Kansas City: Thomas M. Hoenig - Jewish
FRB of Dallas: Richard W. Fisher - Jewish
FRB of San Francisco: Janet L. Yellen - Jewish
FRB of Cleveland: Sandra Pianalto - gentile
FRB of Atlanta: Dennis P. Lockhart - gentile
FRB of Chicago: Charles L. Evans - gentile

This extreme numerical over-representation of Jews among the members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve District Bank presidents cannot be explained away as a coincidence or as the result of mere random chance. You must ask yourself how such an incredibly small and extremely unrepresentative minority ethnic group that only represents about 2% of the American population could so completely dominate the highest levels of the United States Federal Reserve System.
Holy shit!”

 
At 10:03 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Yes, but do they violate the will or rights of the majority?

 
At 10:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred, I think your policy of moderating your blog is gradually forcing the trolls onto Topix. They've been trying to goad me into a peeing contest, but I won't lower myself to their level. Thanks for upholding a higher standard. And for continuing to allow honorable Anonymouses like me to continue to post on Fred's Humboldt Blog.

 
At 10:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark Konkler is a fucking ignoramus, as usual. The ACLU never backs contribution caps or campaign spending caps. They were even against McCain-Feingold. They only **support** public financing.

However, they have been known to stay neutral on contribution limits which are designed to survive judicial review, like Arcata's law, or like the general limit on contributions to federal candidates.

Neutral is not the same as support, mresquan. Maybe your Lord and Master over at DUHC can buy a dictionary for you with some of his funny money hot out of the printer.

 
At 10:35 AM, Blogger Fred said...

"Mark Konkler is a fucking ignoramus...".

Personal insults are not allowed here. I'm posting the above because there's more to the comment than just an insult. Still, don't try my patience.

You can make your point without the name calling.

 
At 11:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're right Fred. It should have said, "Mark is totally ignorant." That would be more polite, and more accurate.

 
At 12:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can feel a slight breeze as the air fizzes out of the power balloon for David and Kaitlin.

Measure T wouldn't even pass today, now that the campaign-time lies and tricks against the voters have been exposed -- much as the latest polling shows about Prop. 8.

A contribution cap will pass with more of a voter mandate than Measure T -- 58-60% at least. And this time, David Cobb and Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap won't be able to claim credit for it or raise money off of it to pay their mortgage. Boo hoo.

 
At 12:35 PM, Blogger Fred said...

I don't know that even that needs to be said. Quiet honestly, one of the biggest surprises to me when I got involved in blogs was the number of people that feel they need to include a put down every time they make a comment.

 
At 1:07 PM, Blogger mresquan said...

This is a comment from an anon over at Rose's blog.

"How about you scare yourself out of your complacency, wake up, and stand up with the adults in the room who want a campaign finance law that actually does some good and actually is constiutional. You know, that one David Cobb and Dave Meserve are trying to take credit for now after attacking Chris and Greg for years for making this same proposal as an alternative to the loony Measure T."

Well what Chris Crawford has proposed is a contribution limitation.Seems to me that this poster at least see that Greg,an ACLU member and rep,supports it,and apparently has been working with Crawford on it.Am I wrong?

 
At 2:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like the notion of contribution limits. What's wrong with the idea?

 
At 3:05 PM, Blogger Stephen said...

"Yes, but do they violate the will or rights of the majority?"

Fred..

Separation of Church and State, remember? We don't allow Mormons or Scientologists to govern our U.S. policies yet we do for Jews? Why this special treatment for one minority group in the U.S.A?

When Muslims find out this information I posted above, they make the connection immediately to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and a hidden Jewish stranglehold on the American government and its people. And why shouldn't they? It is utterly amazing to me that so few protest this grievous imbalance of minority power. It is only because the Jewish control of major American media that so few know about our Federal Reserve Banks being held in the members of one minority religion in America. You can bet you bottom dollar that if it were Mormons or Scientologists owning these banks, all Americans would know about it and anger would erupt at how we allowed ourselves to get into this situation so fraught with blackmail potential, e.g. U.S. support of Israel no matter what Israel does to break U.N. resolutions, Amnesty International's and other humanitarian watchdog organization's repeated calls for protecting Palestinian human rights.

The wool has been pulled over yours and most everyone's eyes and it's time to wake up and get out from under the blanket of censorship of Jewish control of about everything they can get their hands on, including our local Progressive activist leadership as seen on Heraldo's (Ken Miller's group) and now Eric's wannabe Jewish SoHum Parlance propaganda blog.

 
At 3:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unlike the profiteers at Democracy Unlimited who live off of the activism the rest of us do for free, Greg isn't on staff and isn't paid a dime by the ACLU.

He's allowed to speak for himself, as he has recently on the medical marijuana case in Arcata. If they were asked, the ACLU would probably agree with him on that subject too, but the dispensary regulations haven't elicited their interest.

 
At 6:07 PM, Blogger Stephen said...

Neither has anti-Gentilism. I've asked as a member of ACLU (not any more) to investigate how ABC network can own and operate the world's largest religious talkboard forum, Beliefnet, CEO Steve Waldman, that censors and bans anti-Zionist members and was told by ACLU they can do anything they want-it's their forum--ACLU's hands are tied so not knowing anything more than my Constitutional 1st Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion I have no idea if Beliefnet can get away with turning so many religious viewers minds against anti-Zionists.

 
At 9:56 PM, Blogger Rose said...

How much do you think Cobb/Kaitlin/DUHC/all the other names has raised? How much do they owe to the County, since that is who bore the cost of fighting for Measure T.

Or did they pay the pro-bono lawyer for the work he DID do - Kaitlin and Cobb don't tell you that their pro-bono big-shot lawyer DID consult with the County, couldn't take the lead, DID consult with the lawyer who did handle the case, and DID agree that settling was the best thing to do, that Measure T was Dead on arrival.

Instead they'd rather make up stuff about the Supervisors "caving in."

I'm sure Cobb would have been very entertained and pleased with himself to see his baby go all the way to the Supreme Court even if it was a loser all the way. Imagine the ego-rush.

Anyway's I'd be a writin' that Hundred Thousand Dollar check right now, guys - we know you're good with the press. Waiting to hear the report............................. .................. ........... ...... ..... .... ... ... .

 
At 5:23 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Rose wrote, "...Kaitlin and Cobb don't tell you that their pro-bono big-shot lawyer DID consult with the County, couldn't take the lead, DID consult with the lawyer who did handle the case, and DID agree that settling was the best thing to do,...".

Oh, REALLY? First I've heard of that. I think that would make an excellent letter to the editor, Rose.

 
At 9:56 AM, Blogger mresquan said...

Rose,voters passed Measure T,not David,Kaitlin,DUHC,and myself.It passed with 55% of the vote.The opposition had their chance to get their word out,and they did,and even so the voters saw passed it and passed it knowing that challenges would ensue.The decision to not defend it is the problem of the county's,not those who worked to see the Measure passed.

 
At 10:16 AM, Blogger samoasoftball said...

Fred: Rose is right. It was no secret that lawyer John Bonifaz was used by Humboldt County (at no expense) for counsel concerning Measure T. It was made public at the BOS chambers a couple of weeks ago.

Fighting for something that voters overwhelmingly supported is better spent money than the $250,000 Falor made off with or the millions? that were lost over the Redevelopment fiasco.

Just saying.

 
At 10:21 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Except, unless I'm misreading something, Rose doesn't think the county should have spent anymore money defending Measure T.

If even the Measure T supporter's counsel thought the measure wasn't worth defending, why should the BOS think it is?

 
At 1:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We should have fired Tammy Falor when she gave a completely misleading and incomplete official legal summary of Measure T. She should have stated that it "attempted to pre-empt state law with a local law" as any responsible legal expert would have told you.

It was a waste of money paying her a dime Richard, we agree on that. But this doesn't make wasting money on Measure T crapola any more justifiable.

 
At 3:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On Tuesday December 9, 2008 during the 9am board of supes calendar there are three items during closed session. Evaluation of county counsel; appointment of the permanent position of county counsel AND the whether to raise the salaries of county counsel and deputy county counsels.

NOW WHAT IS UP WITH THE BOARD POSTING A FIFTEEN MINUTE SPECIAL MEETING AT 8:45 AM THE SAME DAY FOR THESE SAME THREE ITEMS?

Could it be they have already decided and want to make it formal without allowing anyone in the public to comment on it?

 
At 4:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh horse shit!

First, Falor didn't give a misleading or incomplete summary of Measure T. The summary was provided by Shelley Morrison.

Second, when an agency like that is asked to give a summary, it isn't whether the thing is constitutional or not. Its a summary of what the damn measure is, you idiot!

 
At 12:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking strictly for myself:

One thing about posting on blogs. If one is an idiot, one need never feel lonely.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home